Jason Garrett has no plans to give up play calling, nixes talk of adding Norv Turner as OC

Cowboys coach Jason Garrett was admittedly spread thin this season as head coach and offensive coordinator because the so many adversities his team had to face _ from the litany of injuries on defense to the tragic death of practice-squad linebacker Jerry Brown.

But he doesn’t think the jobs were too much for him _ certainly not enough to give up his role as offensive coordinator and possibly hire fired Chargers coach Norv Turner to call plays.

“I would certainly anticipate the status quo from that standpoint,” Garrett said.

We barely tried that last year. Signing a guy the Bengals made no attempt to bring back and then a back-up from a team desperate for better Guard play is hardly the correct approach to improving our O Line.

Sign better players. Stop thinking you're smarter than everyone (Jerry) and just sign actually better players. No one is impressed with your eye for talent.

As far as drafting O-Line, I agree but again, add better talent. No more David Arkin or Robert Brewster wasted picks. They aren't steals if they are overdrafted by 3 rounds and make zero impact in the NFL. They are just bad draft picks.

Garrett needs to get his ******* head straight. If he's not just saying he wouldn't give up the play calling for the cameras, then he's a dumb ass who has too big of an ego. How the hell do you not make adjustments to the blitz when you've got plenty of tools to do so? I give him props for getting the team to play well most of the last stretch, but his major issues reared their ugly head yet again last night.

__________________
"If you have one finger pointing at somebody, you have three pointing towards yourself."
~Nigerian Proverb

So let's say we are in a position where Matt Barkley and/or Geno Smith free fall through the first and we are sitting there at 19(or wherever we have slipped to now that the season is over). Do we see an Aaron Rodgers situation where we absolutely HAVE to take the slipping QB or do we go after needs more then BPA as there are clearly still well over 3 starting positions on Offence and Defence that are up for grabs if a first round rookie is capable of running with the ball?

So let's say we are in a position where Matt Barkley and/or Geno Smith free fall through the first and we are sitting there at 19(or wherever we have slipped to now that the season is over). Do we see an Aaron Rodgers situation where we absolutely HAVE to take the slipping QB or do we go after needs more then BPA as there are clearly still well over 3 starting positions on Offence and Defence that are up for grabs if a first round rookie is capable of running with the ball?

Personally I say no, I am with the others in thinking that it is time to build the team to be efficient regardless of QB. Adding pieces to the defense and building up an offensive line. Not a fan of Geno or Barkley anyway, Smith is a product of the system and Barkley is a product of superior talent around him.

Personally I say no, I am with the others in thinking that it is time to build the team to be efficient regardless of QB. Adding pieces to the defense and building up an offensive line. Not a fan of Geno or Barkley anyway, Smith is a product of the system and Barkley is a product of superior talent around him.

Pretty much this. I'm not sure about the love for Geno or Barkley in this draft.

D- no point continuing on Romo because either you are fatally biased in how you view him, and me, or are trolling simply for a reaction. This definitely is classified as a criticism so if you are trying to straw-man me to make your point more valid it doesn't work. I get it. You don't like Romo and want an elite QB. So if Dallas happens on a chance to nab Peyton, Tom, Drew, or Aaron I would be all over it as well.

Quote:

Don't protect him and he will improvise for better or worse. Free rushers are what kill Tony and make him "Tony Turnover". I agree that his abhorrent behavior towards sacks leads to a number of negative plays. The last INT was the embodiment of that "sickness".

Well, if we do nothing else this off-season the one thing we HAVE to address is finding a way to run the football. This one dimensional offense we've been running the past half dozen years is not gonna get us over the hump. There's still hope for Tony, but we need to take some of the load off his shoulders. We're asking him to do more than he's capable of, which is not his fault.

I want some big nasty road graders and a complementary bell cow to Murray, I don't care if we devote all our off-season resources to finding a good run game but it HAS to be done for us to get over this hump.

The last 1,000 yd rusher we had was Emmitt fricken Smith... That's insane and its as much of a reason for our failures over the years as anything else.

EDIT: actually Julius Jones cracked 1K in 06 so Emmitt wasn't the last, but you get what I'm saying. We ain't getting it done on the ground and it needs to change.

We need to try and trade back (I know this is said every year and is easier said than done) and get additional picks. One thing the injuries showed this year is how poor our depth is in certain positions (safety, oline, dline). When I was in Dallas this year for the Giants game, they had a great radio discussion about how teams are built, and one of the things they pointed out was that the Cowboys in the last 6 or so years had a lot less picks in the 1st 3 rds than the top teams (Giants, Packers, Niners) and what that eventually does is kill your depth.

I admit I was a huge fan of the Claiborne trade when it happened, because I thought the team needed an impact player and our track record at the time for rd 2 picks wasn't stellar anyway. Hindsight being 20/20, we'd have been better off staying w/ Brockers and Wagner (whom Jerrah said would have been the pick) and perhaps picking a Blake in rd 3 instead of Crawford.

We would have all been lamenting the draft w/o question (myself included) but with 2 injury prone ILBs, Wagner made sense and Brockers turned out to be pretty good also.

Pretty much this. I'm not sure about the love for Geno or Barkley in this draft.

D- no point continuing on Romo because either you are fatally biased in how you view him, and me, or are trolling simply for a reaction. This definitely is classified as a criticism so if you are trying to straw-man me to make your point more valid it doesn't work. I get it. You don't like Romo and want an elite QB. So if Dallas happens on a chance to nab Peyton, Tom, Drew, or Aaron I would be all over it as well.

Let me try to clarify because you still don't get what I've been trying to say.

I like Romo. I don't think that criticizing him for his obvious flaws makes me a hater. That is you labeling me a hater. I think I'm a fair critic. Even when you call him Tony Turnover, you're not criticizing him because you're putting it on the OL. So that's why I say that you don't find fault in the things that he does. It's not strawman. In addition, I'm not saying things that I don't think aren't true. I'm not trying to get a rise. I'm just voicing my frustrations and opinions on him which is what a forum board is for. Criticizing Romo after the game he just had is not injust.

He's a complicated QB to evaluate. At times he's very conservative to the point he appears like Captain Checkdown. At times he's a gunslinger. High risk, high reward. He'll lead this team to some amazing highs and amazing lows. Sometimes I wonder if his highs are more a product of him making the easy play look hard (or more amazing). I've said this before but I think he turns into captain checkdown when he reminds himself not to be a gunslinger. Trying to be too safe in attempting to throw to the most open guy. He's his own devil when he does that. But you can't deny that he can get things done better than a lot of other quarterbacks.

The thing I want to clarify is that I don't think we need an elite QB. I keep hearing, "Well who are you going to find that's better?" I don't care about QB rankings to determine that. I think lesser could be better. Someone smarter with the football. You can't say who because they're not available. NFL teams are not trading their QBs no matter the range or type. Could be talking about Brady, Schaub, Stafford or Kaepernick or whoever... they're not going anywhere. We can only look at the draft and judge the traits of those QBs.

Personally I say no, I am with the others in thinking that it is time to build the team to be efficient regardless of QB. Adding pieces to the defense and building up an offensive line. Not a fan of Geno or Barkley anyway, Smith is a product of the system and Barkley is a product of superior talent around him.

Romo is definitely our QB. No matter what critics may say, he's gonna be here until the wheels fall off. As long as we're as competitive hovering around an 8-8 record, he'll be here. Of course he's getting his extension.

That doesn't stop future QB talk. If the situation presented itself for us to be able to draft a good QB prospect, then it makes sense. I'm not a fan of Geno either. But Barkley does prevent enough strengths that I might take a gamble. I don't agree that he's a product of the system. Ironically, that sounds like what we're trying to do with Romo. Fix the system around him. haha. I know Barkley is smart with the ball. He's a natural leader. He's very acurate. He's got to improve his strength, but that can come. If he was really a product of the system then USC wouldn't have sucked as much when he went down, but they are clearly an inferior team without him. He actually only has 2 great WRs, but after that USC is just a collection of overrated recruits. OL, RB, Defense are shabby at best.

D, the thing I find frustrating with the Romo "hate" even though I know you dont hate him, is it seems everything is his fault. If he takes a sack its because he held on to the ball to long. If the WR runs the wrong route its because Romo doesnt stay after practice to get on the same page. If he throws short its because he doesnt trust his receivers. If he throws deep and the receiver doesnt make a play on the ball, its a bad throw. IDK, the one obvious thing is he clearly doesnt have the clutch gene that the Bradys and Mannings ect seem to have. 1 playoff win in 17 years, Romo is not the problem. The problem is JJ takes flash over substance. Tyrone was the exception, other than him when was th last time we spent a high round pick on either of our lines? LBs, CB, WRs, RBs... I hope Garrett can change all that, if not its 8-8, 8-8, 8-8

I agree with that. I definitely don't think he is our biggest problem. Just one tough pill to swallow last night. The good thing about him is that if we fix up everything else then there is hope. Can't say that about Doug Free. Lol

I still think there is plenty of reason for optimism for 2013. We got close and that sucks, but being close is good.

That's the thing maybe you guys can draft a QB. Draft one in the 1st 3 rounds, and see if the player can be a good fit. It may take a while, but I don't see Romo as the answer at QB. I do agree though, that if you get rid of him you guys need someone else. I think now you guys may be at a spot where you may have to draft and develop a QB. Maybe tailor the system towards the QB and see what happens.

D, the thing I find frustrating with the Romo "hate" even though I know you dont hate him, is it seems everything is his fault. If he takes a sack its because he held on to the ball to long. If the WR runs the wrong route its because Romo doesnt stay after practice to get on the same page. If he throws short its because he doesnt trust his receivers. If he throws deep and the receiver doesnt make a play on the ball, its a bad throw. IDK, the one obvious thing is he clearly doesnt have the clutch gene that the Bradys and Mannings ect seem to have. 1 playoff win in 17 years, Romo is not the problem. The problem is JJ takes flash over substance. Tyrone was the exception, other than him when was th last time we spent a high round pick on either of our lines? LBs, CB, WRs, RBs... I hope Garrett can change all that, if not its 8-8, 8-8, 8-8

People say Jerry favors flash over substance as reasons why we don't take OL in Round 1, but he has spent a lot of money on the OL so I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Our problem on the OL has been the struggle to develop the OL that we draft. Spending money on FAs has worked for the most part, but when they are out of worth, then we don't have the talent to step in and take over. I'm hoping Parnell can break that trend. ...but he wasn't someone we drafted either. Doug Free has been the only guy who had gone that route and it worked for a little while, but alas his run is over. It's one thing to not expect late round OL to work out, but when 3rd rounders like Brewster and Arkin don't pan out, it's frustrating. Now we're supposed to buy the hype in Ronald Leary? Oh well, they'll string us along I guess.

Everything is not Romo's fault. In all my mock draft that I have done this year I have only given us a mid round QB once. If I really thought he was the main problem then I would've mocked us with QBs more than that. I'm sure with a better OL that he will be better. It's logical. To me, that is our main concern. My irritation with the Romo situation is how people love to gloat about his stats and compare those stats to Brady and Manning and say stuff that suggest he's on par or better than them. Then when we win, it's all about how Romo did it. Screw that. We win with him, not because of him.. and because he didn't make critical mistakes or we were able to get through despite them.

Romo is definitely our QB. No matter what critics may say, he's gonna be here until the wheels fall off. As long as we're as competitive hovering around an 8-8 record, he'll be here. Of course he's getting his extension.

That doesn't stop future QB talk. If the situation presented itself for us to be able to draft a good QB prospect, then it makes sense. I'm not a fan of Geno either. But Barkley does prevent enough strengths that I might take a gamble. I don't agree that he's a product of the system. Ironically, that sounds like what we're trying to do with Romo. Fix the system around him. haha. I know Barkley is smart with the ball. He's a natural leader. He's very acurate. He's got to improve his strength, but that can come. If he was really a product of the system then USC wouldn't have sucked as much when he went down, but they are clearly an inferior team without him. He actually only has 2 great WRs, but after that USC is just a collection of overrated recruits. OL, RB, Defense are shabby at best.

Like you said Jerry is going to ride Romo until the wheels fall off, his arm strength and mobility has not started to decline so my best guess is he has 3-4 years left playing the way he does. Taking a QB with in the top 50 picks doesn't make sense to me unless you feel like your starting QB is due for a sharp decline or that prospect is plug and play. I don't think that there is the probability for either to justify picking Barkley.

That scouting report of Barkley sounds like every USC QB with the exception of Carson Palmer. Leinart, Sanchez, Booty, and Cassel were all extremely smart college QB's that made good decisions but lacked arm strength. What makes evaluating Trojan QB's so hard is the amount of talent around them. 9-10 times they have are surrounded by future top 50 picks from top to bottom. You probably have a better feel then most being a USC fan but watching Barkley I feel he is best served for the west coast offense not the vertical offense JG likes to run.

Not that I am particularly partial on any of the QB's but if we wanted a developmental guy we would be better off taking someone like Bray or Landry Jones in later rounds. Both have very good arms and experience but need time to smooth out their mechanics. They fit much better in a JG system and won't cost a first or second round pick that we could use to build up the trenches or get a playmaker at safety.

Like you said Jerry is going to ride Romo until the wheels fall off, his arm strength and mobility has not started to decline so my best guess is he has 3-4 years left playing the way he does. Taking a QB with in the top 50 picks doesn't make sense to me unless you feel like your starting QB is due for a sharp decline or that prospect is plug and play. I don't think that there is the probability for either to justify picking Barkley.

That scouting report of Barkley sounds like every USC QB with the exception of Carson Palmer. Leinart, Sanchez, Booty, and Cassel were all extremely smart college QB's that made good decisions but lacked arm strength. What makes evaluating Trojan QB's so hard is the amount of talent around them. 9-10 times they have are surrounded by future top 50 picks from top to bottom. You probably have a better feel then most being a USC fan but watching Barkley I feel he is best served for the west coast offense not the vertical offense JG likes to run.

Not that I am particularly partial on any of the QB's but if we wanted a developmental guy we would be better off taking someone like Bray or Landry Jones in later rounds. Both have very good arms and experience but need time to smooth out their mechanics. They fit much better in a JG system and won't cost a first or second round pick that we could use to build up the trenches or get a playmaker at safety.

I do feel like teams can wait on a QB until theirs basically dies. Elite QBs come into the league more ready to play, so the development is not as critical as it used to be.

But each situation is different for teams. I agree Romo has 3-4 years in him. Favre had 3-4 years left in him when they took Rogers too. Makes you think.

One risk of taking a QB early is the shitstorm it would cause the minute Romo messes up. This fanbase is really really tired of mediocrity and getting to the point w/ Romo where they're looking for his replacement rather than to hope he gets better.

Garrett is getting a pass here because Romo was so bad on Sunday. 37 passes to 22 runs, in a game where we were tied or within one score for most of it, and we averaged 4.6 a carry. Ridiculous.

I also have a feeling that Rob Ryan may have coached his last game for us as well.

It would be interesting to see if this is a scare tactic or Jerry really wants to shake things up. It is hard to really do anything with the roster because we are so strapped by the cap and dumping salary cost you down the road. Miles, Ratliff, and Free all have sizable contracts that could be re-worked. I don't think anyone on that list would have trade value though.

I hope Rob doesn't get the axe, he really did a nice job when everyone was healthy and help it together as the bodies kept falling.

As for the Garrett comments I really don't know what to make of it, maybe it is just to put him on skates. It will surely start up the rumor mill again and we will start hearing names line Lovie, Chip Kelly, and Mike Holmgren as head coaching options.